New: "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Tim Nickerson]

You are still peddling the mind-boggling, self-discrediting fantasy that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the JFK skull x-rays are the same object, even though every medical panel that has reviewed the x-rays has identified them as two separate objects, and even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray. It takes a special kind of blind bias to cling to such raw, demonstrably erroneous fiction.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.  - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE  BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
-  Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.

[John Corbett]

Only in your poorly educated mind. For starters, the WC's scenario is hardly "complete." Good grief, the HSCA blew that myth out of the water.

Second, you're in no position to be saying whether a plausible alternative scenario has been presented (in fact, several such scenarios have been presented), because you've done so little reading on the JFK case that you don't even know what the WC said about key issues, nor do you know what leading WC defenders have said on key issues, much less what WC critics have documented.

The key questions for any reporter to answer for his/her readers/viewers are Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. The What, Where, and When are givens. The Why is unknowable. The key questions the WC has answered that the CT community as a whole can't answer is Who and How. The WC answered these questions with total clarity and with a wealth of evidence to support those answers. Name one CT who has ever been able to do that. Most CTs, you included, never even attempt to do so. You only tell us why you dismiss the WCR conclusions. You only tell us what didn't happen. The few attempts you make to tell us what did happen are deliberately vague and unsupported by credible evidence. None of you will put your cards on the table. None of you will tell us who you think did it and how it went down. If you can't do that, what is the point of your decades long efforts? If you can't explain what happened with the evidence that is available now, what is the purpose for your continued pontifications on this subject? Do you think anybody is going to care what you have to say if you can't answer the fundamental questions based on what is known now? Do you think some game changing evidence is suddenly going to appear out of nowhere? Just what purpose do you think you are serving?